Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Castiel, it seems to me there is a certain element of giving credence to the scripture in the first place in order to be able to understand the rationale and logic contained therein. If there is no clash between science and religion, shouldn't there be a universal system of logic and rationale that underpins them both?

I'm not sure if I've fully formulated that thought let alone articulated it properly before posting but perhaps you can answer me before I become fully grounded in that train of thought.

Edit, goodnight!

Edit 2, there's also potentially the slight snag that by definition, faith is 100% conviction/confidence that supposedly doesn't rely on logic or material evidence. If that definition is to be taken at face value, it kind of screams futility at having meaningfulness in any philosophical sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Such a good quote
Paul Dietrich said:
If a faithful account was rendered of Man's ideas upon divinity, he would be obliged to acknowledge that for the most part the word "Gods" has been used to express the concealed, remote, unknown causes of the effects he witnessed; that he applies this term when the spring of the natural, the source of known causes, ceases to be visible; As soon as he loses the thread of these causes, or as soon as his mind can no longer follow the chain, he solves the difficulty, terminates his research, by ascribing it to his Gods... When, therefore, he ascribes to his gods the production of some phenomenon... Does he, in fact, do anything more than substitute for the darkness of his own mind, a sound to which he has been accustomed to listen with reverential awe?
Click to expand...

Hard not to let the scepticism pile on regarding an allegorical interpretation of genesis or general misinterpretations of the biblical meanings when you consider the origins and course over history of religion (such as reliance upon scripture written by people with less robust knowledge), and it's use as a means to provide temporary answers to questions which really fell under the remit of the physical sciences. Still, science is continually refining it's knowledge, why should religion be absolute/static? Especially if one considers that it's down to misinterpretations and misapplication to physical science as opposed to strictly philosophical questions, and that an allegorical interpretation may be valid in a spiritual sense.
In this way there is still room for religion to exist separately from science I guess, except that from a historical point of view it very much seems like the eradication of one by the other as a means of providing rational and testable explanations. I'm sure strict philosophy in general has been impacted upon by science too?


Jason/Ringo, surely you must have reasonable doubt otherwise why bother seeking out evidence? If you have unshakable faith in your convictions then the only other motive I can see for seeking evidence and demonstrating/presenting it, is to convert someone to share your beliefs or to at least acknowledge, respect, if not validate them - so how do you hope to convert someone to your belief by invoking doubt in them? Such doubts are already intrinsic to the practice and philosophy of science, whereas religion relies on quashing doubts. By trying to convince/persuade someone using evidence, all you're doing is getting them to perform the scientific method and make a decision based on the available (or even limited) evidence. That's not religious faith at all, it's just a decision/judgement made beyond what you perceive to be reasonable doubt. If it's faith you shouldn't even seek validation, which it turn raises the question of why you need teachings, religious communities, or indeed any communication of it at all between fellow man since by definition it shouldn't need 'life support', faith should just 'be there' without reasoning or processing any information at all, right? By all means share in the joy of it with others that already have it though,......wherever these beings may exist that don't rely on processing information to have faith but are pre-programmed or wake up one day with it.
 
Last edited:
If Jason2 is genuine then he's completely closed minded. Reading this thread its actually easy to get ****** off by the guy. He posts up religious stuff, which fair enough I have no problem with, carry on being religious, carry on being a follower of your God. BUT MY GOD, STOP BEING SO CLOSED MINDED AND DISMISSIVE OF THE FACTS BEING SHOWN TO YOU.

Have you not noticed how you are jumping from one, 'Yeah but' to the next 'yeah but' whenever someone posts up facts on the contrary to your position?

Sorry but, to me this whole thread has brought you out to be extremely narrowminded and unwilling to budge on any stance thats embedded in your mind, regardless of being show anything to the contrary

Alternatively you could just be an internet troll with nothing better to do(which is a little bit sad)
 
Last edited:
Again the issue with this kind of blind faith in a book is that the people who follow the book and cite it as evidence are somehow unaware that a book from 2000 years ago with undefined author, motive etc is not to be considered evidence of anything at all. It is a man made artefact of religious doctrine not a factual account of history.

Whereas the believers in the book view scientific research into DNA and mutations therein are somehow wishywashy.

They don't seem to understand that the book itself is a terrible fragment of evidence. Unreliable from start to finish - yet these people hold the text above any scrutiny even though it should be scrutinized in even more detail.

In short, anyone quoting the scriptures to back up a viewpoint created within the scripture should simply be ignored as they seem unable to objectively assess or comprehend the topic.
 
Jason2 said:
I have ignored no posts, shayper. The only posts I have ignored are those who are on my ignore list. I have been respectful to all people I've spoken with so don't even dare to judge me pal.
Click to expand...

This is another obviously untrue statement. Two of them, actually. You've ignored numerous posts and you've been respectful to few if any people.
 
Oxy said:
If God forgives; is Hitler in heaven?
Click to expand...

Well Hitler was a Christian, and if he repented I can't see why he wouldn't be in Heaven.
Whereas according to christians John Lennon, Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Douglas Adams are currently burning in hell.

Shows what a joke it all is really.
 
I've just read the whole thread.

Jason2, thanks for providing yet further evidence to prove the veracity of Poe's law.

Good to see that the majority view is well grounded.
 
He ignores every answer to his questions and then moves onto another question instead of discussing the information he originally requested.

I know someone like this at work, he walks around asking random and meaningless questions and you just know, you can see it in his eyes he is thinking up another question whilst ignoring the answer you give him. It makes conversation difficult and other people see it as weird behaviour.

like this guy. the guys answer a question and instead of discussing it, he just moves on to a completely disparate question

estebanrey said:
Jason2, do you live in Austin, Texas by any chance?

Click to expand...

About 14 mins the religious guy says he believes I the bible simply based upon the bible. Not because the characters in the bible are legitimized by being in other publications or accounts, but simply because the bible is as It is and is a factual document, which is an incredibly naïve position.

this is the entire crux of it.

and as they conclude, sometimes you hit a wall.
 
Last edited:
I do want to give Jason2 some credit at least for attempting to contribute to these types of threads. I'm fairly certain that more then a few people have learnt something new as a result of trying to explain to him is ignorance, and that can only be a good thing.

People tend to hate on these types of threads, but personally I find them fascinating and interesting.
 
Johnnytoxic said:
how the eye evolved I think.
Click to expand...
In the video link below Prof Brian Cox explains only how the eye works he doesn't actually explain how the eye could have actually evolved, there is no scientific explanation of how each highly sophisticated part of the eye evolved step by step, scientists don't even know what the first life from was on earth and how that life form got to be there and how it came to be alive in a evolutionary manner let alone how the eye evolved. Maybe i'll check out the next wonders of life episode and see if any real science can explain how it evolved step by step?, i doubt it very much though, no one has actually explained it yet. Although the video link is a quick look into eye evolution it is in no way convincing evidence imho.

BBC Two - Wonders of Life, Expanding Universe, Making the eye
 
kedge said:
there is no scientific explanation of how each highly sophisticated part of the eye evolved step by step,
Click to expand...

The scientific explanation is that the eye evolved.


Your persistent approach of proclaiming that 'evolution is false' at every possible opportunity, is unsatisfactory, unfounded and unsupported by any theory, evidence or anyone for that matter.

Everything you say is wrong, all your knowledge comes from Youtube and is subsequently wrong, you refuse to educate yourself to a sufficient level where you can debate the subject, when shown strong evidence that supports evolution you either ignore it, don't understand it, or just don't believe it.

So you may as well just stop, because the exact same noise that came out when you first started ranting, hasn't changed - we've heard it all and it's wrong, so please either stop or change the record.
 
Robosapien said:
Why can't it move at different rates? I see it as a dam bursting. The underlying process continues until it hits the right mechanism and then the dam bursts and we see the observable consequences. I mean, the chances of hitting the right mechanism for various stages is probably similar to that giving rise to life in the first place, it seems inevitable that you would get pockets of apparent latency.
Click to expand...

The rate of occurrence must surely be vitally important. The Cambrian fossils show the appearance of animal types suddenly without any of the ancestors that Darwinism claims. This would have required massive amounts of new information. In Darwinism any changes are slow and gradual and as time goes on the changes are larger and more pronounced. The Cambrian record shows the complete opposite.

So where does this new information come from? It seems from this thread that it is simply all about DNA mutations. If you mutate DNA continually, will you ever form something totally new? DNA can build proteins but what controls the building of proteins into larger structures and eventually new organs for example? Darwinism demands a bottom up approach but this has been totally overturned by the Cambrian fossils.
 
V-Spec said:
The scientific explanation is that the eye evolved.
Click to expand...

I find this post very funny! Is this undeniable fact now?

V-Spec said:
Your persistent approach of proclaiming that 'evolution is false' at every possible opportunity, is unsatisfactory, unfounded and unsupported by any theory, evidence or anyone for that matter.

Everything you say is wrong, all your knowledge comes from Youtube and is subsequently wrong, you refuse to educate yourself to a sufficient level where you can debate the subject, when shown strong evidence that supports evolution you either ignore it, don't understand it, or just don't believe it.
Click to expand...

:)
 
ringo747 said:
So where does this new information come from? It seems from this thread that it is simply all about DNA mutations. If you mutate DNA continually, will you ever form something totally new?
Click to expand...

Well, every mutation if expressed could possibly be 'something new' even if it's very small, such as lungs which have a higher capacity (like the people who live at altitude in nepal have)

Evolution doesn't claim that something new should spring out of an unsuspecting womb or egg anywhere, it simply states that things change over time depending on environment.

In 'the greatest show on earth' Dawkins uses a good analogy to describe what would happen if you went backwards in time;


Take a young rabbit and her mother, put them side by side - then take her grand mother and so on, until you have an endless family line of rabbits going back hundreds of thousands of years, then imagine you could press a giant rewind button, and fly through them thousands per second - like a picture book animation.

It will gradually start to look less like a rabbit, going on and on until it begins to look like a common ancestor for mammals, mean while you'll reverse past other linages for things like Hares, guinea pigs and other things that would be close by to rabbits in the evolutionary tree.

When you went far enough back so that it looked nothing like a rabbit, you could fast forward again but this time select any of the 'branches' you wanted to go down, until you ended up going from the common ancestor to any of the mammal species we have today.

So to answer your question, there wouldn't be anything 'totally new' at any point, everything is slightly 'new' or 'different' nothing is static. It's true that some creatures have hardly changed at all - crocodiles and some sharks are almost prehistoric, because their environment suits them - other creatures like many mammals and especially plants, have undergone many recent changes - hooves size and shape, teeth and jaw structure etc.



ringo747 said:
DNA can build proteins but what controls the building of proteins into larger structures and eventually new organs for example?
Click to expand...

DNA uses a process called transcription; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

It basically explains how genes are expressed in organisms, and how the information in genes is used to make things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom